§

Ex Parte Jeon et al

11942475 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)
Ex Parte Jeon et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,547 times   185 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  2. Mannesmann Demag v. Engineered Metal Prod

    793 F.2d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 158 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an overall transitional phrase does not trump later transitional language

  3. Application of Royka

    490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that if an independent claim is not anticipated, its dependent claims are also not anticipated

  4. In re Burhans

    154 F.2d 690 (C.C.P.A. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    Patent Appeal No. 5128. April 1, 1946. Appeal from Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 401,968. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Merton E. Burhans for a patent for methods of making flour and bread and for an article of manufacture of genuine whole wheat flour. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the action of the primary examiner in rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Decision affirmed. John

  5. Application of Hampel

    162 F.2d 483 (C.C.P.A. 1947)

    Patent Appeal No. 5316. June 17, 1947. Appeal from the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, Serial No. 448,318. Proceeding in the matter of the application of Clifford A. Hampel for a patent for methods of producing metal hypochlorites. From a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, affirming the decision of the primary examiner rejecting the application, the applicant appeals. Decision of Board of Appeals affirmed. Pennie, Edmonds, Morton Barrows, of

  6. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,129 times   479 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  7. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 186 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  8. Section 134 - Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 134   Cited 98 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) PATENT APPLICANT.-An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. (b) PATENT OWNER.-A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, having once paid the fee for such appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 134 July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 801; Pub. L. 98-622

  9. Section 1.136 - Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)